From: droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com   
      
   For your reference, records indicate that   
   "Leszek Karlik"  wrote:   
      
   > Well, if the rich control automated means of production they don't really   
   > need the poor - and the poor are a significant security risk.   
      
   It’s a cute little “Atlas Shrugged” fantasy to think the rich can just   
   do it all themselves.  But, even with automation, a world of luxury   
   doesn’t just happen.  Worse, the petty envy of rich-against-rich in an   
   automated world presents a *far* greater security risk, not unlike how   
   the nuclear threat has progressed.   
      
   > Luckily for the rich, they will also control automated means of security   
   > and supression (a robot may be much more effective for riot control than   
   > a human policeman who may decide to side with the rioters). In the long   
   > run, this may lead to extermination of the poor.   
      
   History has shown, in the long run, the math actually works out to   
   extermination of the rich via automation:   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution#Guillotine   
      
   Robots don’t care which “riot” they’re programmed to “control”.    
   How   
   long do you *really* think it will be before drones (maybe in the form   
   of a self-driving car) are regularly used in attempts to take out rich   
   and powerful people?   
      
   --   
   "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."   
   River Tam, Trash, Firefly   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)